Gemini 3.5 Flash vs MiniMax M2.7

Updated October 2, 2026. Rank says Gemini 3.5 Flash is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Decision reading

Gemini 3.5 Flash has the higher public score estimate, 63.95 versus 48.56, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner. 10 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Google

63.95/100

Supported · Public rank #41

90% interval 55.9–72.0

Model B

MiniMax M2.7

MiniMax

48.56/100

Supported · Public rank #97

90% interval 37.4–59.7

Shared results: 10
Gemini 3.5 Flash only: 17
MiniMax M2.7 only: 13
Like-for-like categories: 3 / 8

Supported: Gemini 3.5 Flash and MiniMax M2.7How the comparison works

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Gemini 3.5 Flash has the higher public coding point estimate, 52.3 to 36, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Gemini 3.5 Flash has the higher public agentic point estimate, 50.7 to 29.2, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Gemini 3.5 Flash has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented

Show secondary and unsupported calls

Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
MiniMax M2.7
MiniMax M2.7 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
MiniMax M2.7
MiniMax M2.7 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. MiniMax M2.7 does not fit this workload in one request. MiniMax M2.7 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback

Which one for a specific job

Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.

Pick the job you would use them for

The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.

52.3Gemini 3.5 Flash36.0MiniMax M2.7

Like-for-like · BenchAlign v5.8

Gemini 3.5 Flash has the higher coding point estimate. Conditional score ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.

Open the coding leaderboard Shortlist models for this job

Same basis rules as the category table below

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.

MMLU-Pro (Vals)Knowledge
Normalized gap 9.1
Gemini 3.5 Flash:89.5%
MiniMax M2.7:80.4%
Gemini 3.5 Flash source MiniMax M2.7 source
LiveCodeBench (Vals)Coding
Normalized gap 7.7
Gemini 3.5 Flash:87.6%
MiniMax M2.7:79.9%
Gemini 3.5 Flash source MiniMax M2.7 source
SWE-bench ProCoding
Normalized gap 1.1
Gemini 3.5 Flash:55.1%
MiniMax M2.7:56.2%
Gemini 3.5 Flash source MiniMax M2.7 source

Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.

Agentic

Like-for-like

Gemini 3.5 Flash: 50.7; Supported · #42/119
MiniMax M2.7: 29.2; Supported · #82/119
Basis: BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 8 vs 7 public rows
Reading: Gemini 3.5 Flash leads

Coding

Like-for-like

Gemini 3.5 Flash: 52.3; Supported · #39/144
MiniMax M2.7: 36.0; Supported · #76/144
Basis: BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 7 vs 11 public rows
Reading: Gemini 3.5 Flash leads · intervals overlap

Knowledge

Like-for-like

Gemini 3.5 Flash: 64.0; Supported · #30/171
MiniMax M2.7: 43.5; Supported · #88/171
Basis: BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 4 vs 4 public rows
Reading: Gemini 3.5 Flash leads · intervals overlap

Instruction following

Directional only

Gemini 3.5 Flash: 84.1; #43/125
MiniMax M2.7: 91.6; #10/125
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading: Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable

Gemini 3.5 Flash: 62.8; #20/27
MiniMax M2.7: 76.1; Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis: Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable

Gemini 3.5 Flash: 87.8; #6/49
MiniMax M2.7: Not ranked
Basis: Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable

Gemini 3.5 Flash: Not ranked
MiniMax M2.7: Not ranked
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Math

Not comparable

Gemini 3.5 Flash: 55.1; Unranked · 2 rankable rows
MiniMax M2.7: Not ranked
Basis: Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Category scores with the server-provided evidence basis for Gemini 3.5 Flash and MiniMax M2.7
Category	Gemini 3.5 Flash	MiniMax M2.7	Basis	Reading
Agentic	50.7Supported · #42/119	29.2Supported · #82/119	Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 8 vs 7 public rows	Gemini 3.5 Flash leads
Coding	52.3Supported · #39/144	36.0Supported · #76/144	Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 7 vs 11 public rows	Gemini 3.5 Flash leads · intervals overlap
Knowledge	64.0Supported · #30/171	43.5Supported · #88/171	Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 4 vs 4 public rows	Gemini 3.5 Flash leads · intervals overlap
Instruction following	84.1#43/125	91.6#10/125	Directional onlyProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows	Directional only
Reasoning	62.8#20/27	76.1Unranked · 2 rankable rows	Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows	Not comparable
Multimodal	87.8#6/49	Not ranked	Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows	Not comparable
Multilingual	Not ranked	Not ranked	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows	Not comparable
Math	55.1Unranked · 2 rankable rows	Not ranked	Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows	Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

Gemini 3.5 Flash: $0.006; Fits in one request
MiniMax M2.7: $0.0009; Fits in one request

MiniMax M2.7 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Gemini 3.5 Flash: $0.102; Fits in one request
MiniMax M2.7: $0.0186; Fits in one request

MiniMax M2.7 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Gemini 3.5 Flash: $0.15; Fits in one request
MiniMax M2.7: $0.078; Does not fit in one request; Cached input priced at the published list-input rate

MiniMax M2.7 does not fit this workload in one request. MiniMax M2.7 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

SpecificationGemini 3.5 FlashMiniMax M2.7

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Google Gemini API pricing

MiniMax M2.7

200K

API model ID

Gemini 3.5 Flash

gemini-3.5-flash

Google Gemini API pricing

MiniMax M2.7

Not sourced

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Gemini 3.5 Flash

$0.15 per 1M cached input tokens

Google Gemini API pricing

MiniMax M2.7

Not published

Documented inputs

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Not sourced

MiniMax M2.7

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Not sourced

MiniMax M2.7

Not sourced

Provider availability

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Not sourced

MiniMax M2.7

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Reasoning

MiniMax M2.7

Non-Reasoning

Weight access

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Proprietary

MiniMax M2.7

Open Weight

License

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Proprietary

MiniMax M2.7

Open Weight

Release date

Gemini 3.5 Flash

2026-05-19

MiniMax M2.7

2026-03-18

If you already use one of these models

Deployment change: The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal: Gemini 3.5 Flash has the higher public score estimate, 63.95 versus 48.56, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost: Repository review: $0.102 vs $0.0186. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.15 vs $0.078.
Context tradeoff: Gemini 3.5 Flash has the larger documented window (1M).

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Questions

Which is better, Gemini 3.5 Flash or MiniMax M2.7?

Gemini 3.5 Flash has the higher public score estimate, 63.95 versus 48.56, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.

Which is better for coding, Gemini 3.5 Flash or MiniMax M2.7?

Gemini 3.5 Flash has the higher public coding point estimate, 52.3 to 36, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3.5 Flash or MiniMax M2.7?

Gemini 3.5 Flash has the higher public agentic tasks point estimate, 50.7 to 29.2, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Which costs less, Gemini 3.5 Flash or MiniMax M2.7?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.006 on Gemini 3.5 Flash and $0.0009 on MiniMax M2.7; repository review costs $0.102 and $0.0186; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.15 and $0.078. MiniMax M2.7 does not fit this workload in one request. MiniMax M2.7 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Which has the larger context window, Gemini 3.5 Flash or MiniMax M2.7?

Gemini 3.5 Flash has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 200K.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence40 rows

Agentic

Terminal-Bench 2.1
Gemini 3.5 Flash76.2%
Source
MiniMax M2.7—
Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Gemini 3.5 Flash83.6%
Source
MiniMax M2.7—
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon
Gemini 3.5 Flash56.5%
Source
MiniMax M2.746.3%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
OSWorld-Verified
Gemini 3.5 Flash78.4%
Source
MiniMax M2.7—
Not directly comparable
Finance Agent v2
Gemini 3.5 Flash57.9%
Source
MiniMax M2.7—
Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Shared source
Gemini 3.5 Flash61.85%
MiniMax M2.740.40%
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
ResearchClawBench
Gemini 3.5 Flash18.0%
Source
MiniMax M2.7—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash74.2%
Source
MiniMax M2.748.7%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemini 3.5 Flash—
MiniMax M2.757%
Source
Not directly comparable
MLE-Bench Lite
Gemini 3.5 Flash—
MiniMax M2.766.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
MM-ClawBench
Gemini 3.5 Flash—
MiniMax M2.762.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Gemini 3.5 Flash—
MiniMax M2.748.7%
Source
Not directly comparable

Coding

Terminal-Bench 2.1
Gemini 3.5 Flash76.2%
Source
MiniMax M2.7—
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Gemini 3.5 Flash55.1%
Source
MiniMax M2.756.2%
Source
MiniMax M2.7 leads this result
Vibe Code Bench
Shared source
Gemini 3.5 Flash48.68%
MiniMax M2.727.04%
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
cursorBench31
Gemini 3.5 Flash49.8%
Source
MiniMax M2.7—
Not directly comparable
CursorBench 3.2
Gemini 3.5 Flash48.8%
Source
MiniMax M2.7—
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash87.6%
Source
MiniMax M2.779.9%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
SWE-bench (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash78.8%
Source
MiniMax M2.773.8%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
SWE-bench Verified*
Gemini 3.5 Flash—
MiniMax M2.775.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
SWE-Rebench
Gemini 3.5 Flash—
MiniMax M2.751.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Gemini 3.5 Flash—
MiniMax M2.776.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
Multi-SWE Bench
Gemini 3.5 Flash—
MiniMax M2.752.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
VIBE-Pro
Gemini 3.5 Flash—
MiniMax M2.755.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
NL2Repo
Gemini 3.5 Flash—
MiniMax M2.739.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
React Native Evals
Gemini 3.5 Flash—
MiniMax M2.771.4%
Source
Not directly comparable

Reasoning

MRCRv2
Gemini 3.5 Flash77.3%
Source
MiniMax M2.7—
Not directly comparable
MRCR 1M
Gemini 3.5 Flash26.6%
Source
MiniMax M2.7—
Not directly comparable
ARC-AGI-2
Gemini 3.5 Flash72.1%
Source
MiniMax M2.7—
Not directly comparable

Multimodal

CharXiv
Gemini 3.5 Flash84.2%
Source
MiniMax M2.7—
Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Gemini 3.5 Flash83.6%
Source
MiniMax M2.7—
Not directly comparable
Blueprint-Bench 2
Gemini 3.5 Flash33.6%
Source
MiniMax M2.7—
Not directly comparable

Knowledge

GPQA-D
Gemini 3.5 Flash92.7%
Source
MiniMax M2.787.0%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
HLE
Gemini 3.5 Flash40.2%
Source
MiniMax M2.7—
Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash92.7%
Source
MiniMax M2.786.6%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash89.5%
Source
MiniMax M2.780.4%
Source
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
MMLU-Pro (Arcee)
Gemini 3.5 Flash—
MiniMax M2.780.8%
Source
Not directly comparable

Math

FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Gemini 3.5 Flash38.966%
Source
MiniMax M2.7—
Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Gemini 3.5 Flash14.583%
Source
MiniMax M2.7—
Not directly comparable
AIME25 (Arcee)
Gemini 3.5 Flash—
MiniMax M2.780.0%
Source
Not directly comparable

40 public results · 10 shared

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Watch Gemini 3.5 Flash vs MiniMax M2.7

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.

Last updated October 2, 2026

Gemini 3.5 Flash vs MiniMax M2.7

Decision reading

Which one for your work

Coding work

Agentic work

Long documents

Chat turn cost

Repository review cost

Cache-heavy agent loop cost

Which one for a specific job

What is actually comparable

Shape of the matched evidence

Category results, on a stated basis

Agentic

Coding

Knowledge

Instruction following

Reasoning

Multimodal

Multilingual

Math

What each workload costs

Chat turn

Repository review

Cache-heavy agent loop

Specification differences

Context window

API model ID

Cached-input rate

Documented inputs

Documented outputs

Provider availability

Reasoning profile

Weight access

License

Release date

If you already use one of these models

Questions

Which is better, Gemini 3.5 Flash or MiniMax M2.7?

Which is better for coding, Gemini 3.5 Flash or MiniMax M2.7?

Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3.5 Flash or MiniMax M2.7?

Which costs less, Gemini 3.5 Flash or MiniMax M2.7?

Which has the larger context window, Gemini 3.5 Flash or MiniMax M2.7?

Benchmark evidence

Agentic

Coding

Reasoning

Multimodal

Knowledge

Math

Related comparisons

Watch Gemini 3.5 Flash vs MiniMax M2.7